Ki67 index is now an essential part of classification of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. However, its adaptation into daily practice has been fraught with challenges related to counting methodology. In this study, three reviewers used four counting methodologies to calculate Ki67 index in 68 well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: (1) ‘eye-ball’ estimation, which has been advocated as reliable and is widely used; (2) automated counting by image analyzer; (3) manual eye-counting (eye under a microscope without a grid); and (4) manual count of camera-captured/printed image. Pearson’s correlation (R) was used to measure pair-wise correlation among three reviewers using all four methodologies. Average level of agreement was calculated using mean of R values. The results showed that: (1) ‘eye-balling’ was least expensive and fastest (average time <1 min) but had poor reliability and reproducibility. (2) Automated count was the most expensive and least practical with major impact on turnaround time (limited by machine and personnel accessibility), and, more importantly, had inaccuracies in overcounting unwanted material. (3) Manual eye count had no additional cost, averaged 6 min, but proved impractical and poorly reproducible. (4) Camera-captured/printed image was most reliable, had highest reproducibility, but took longer than ‘eye-balling’. In conclusion, based on its comparatively low cost/benefit ratio and reproducibility, camera-captured/printed image appears to be the most practical for calculating Ki67 index. Although automated counting is generally advertised as the gold standard for index calculation, in this study it was not as accurate or cost-effective as camera-captured/printed image and was highly operator-dependent. ‘Eye-balling’ produces highly inaccurate and unreliable results, and is not recommended for routine use.
Background Although rare in the United States, gallbladder cancer (GBCA) is a common cause of cancer death in some parts of the world. To investigate regional differences in pathogenesis and outcomes for GBCA, tumor mutations were analyzed from a sampling of specimens. Methods Primary tumors from patients with GBCA who were treated in Chile, Japan, and the United States between 1999 and 2016 underwent targeted sequencing of known cancer‐associated genes. Fisher exact and Kruskal‐Wallis tests assessed differences in clinicopathologic and genetic factors. Kaplan‐Meier methods evaluated differences in overall survival from the time of surgery between mutations. Results A total of 81 patients were included. Japanese patients (11 patients) were older (median age, 72 years [range, 54‐81 years]) compared with patients from Chile (21 patients; median age, 59 years [range, 32‐73 years]) and the United States (49 patients; median age, 66 years [range, 46‐87 years]) (P = .002) and had more well‐differentiated tumors (46% vs 0% for Chile/United States; P < .001) and fewer gallstone‐associated cancers (36% vs 67% for Chile and 69% for the United States; P = .13). Japanese patients had a median mutation burden of 6 (range, 1‐23) compared with Chile (median mutation burden, 7 [range, 3‐20]) and the United States (median mutation burden, 4 [range, 0‐27]) (P = .006). Tumors from Japanese patients lacked AT‐rich interaction domain 1A (ARID1A) and phosphatidylinositol‐4,5‐bisphosphate 3‐kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA) mutations, whereas Chilean tumors lacked Erb‐B2 receptor tyrosine kinase 3 (ERBB3) and AT‐rich interaction domain 2 (ARID2) mutations. SMAD family member 4 (SMAD4) was found to be mutated similarly across centers (38% in Chile, 36% in Japan, and 27% in the United States; P = .68) and was univariately associated with worse overall survival (median, 10 months vs 25 months; P = .039). At least one potentially actionable gene was found to be altered in 80% of tumors. Conclusions Differences in clinicopathologic variables suggest the possibility of distinct GBCA pathogenesis in Japanese patients, which may be supported by differences in mutation pattern. Among all centers, SMAD4 mutations were detected in approximately one‐third of patients and may represent a converging factor associated with worse survival. The majority of patients carried mutations in actionable gene targets, which may inform the design of future trials.
Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas are histologically heterogenous. Using a cohort of 184 clinically defined, resected intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas, we retrospectively classified the histology into 4 subtypes: large duct (LD), small duct (SD) (predominantly tubular [SD1] or predominantly anastomosing/cholangiolar, [SD2]), or indeterminate. Then, we tested the 4 subtypes for associations with risk factors, patient outcomes, histology, and immunophenotypic characteristics. SD was the most common (84%; 24% SD1 and 60% SD2) with lower proportions of LD (8%), and indeterminate (8%). Primary sclerosing cholangitis was rare (2%), but correlated with LD (P=0.005). Chronic hepatitis, frequent alcohol use, smoking, and steatosis had no histologic association. LD was associated with mucin production (P<0.001), perineural invasion (P=0.002), CA19-9 staining (P<0.001), CK7, CK19, CD56 immunophenotype (P=0.005), and negative albumin RNA in situ hybridization (P<0.001). SD was histologically nodular (P=0.019), sclerotic (P<0.001), hepatoid (P=0.042), and infiltrative at the interface with hepatocytes (P<0.001). Albumin was positive in 71% of SD and 18% of LD (P=0.0021). Most albumin positive tumors (85%) lacked extracellular mucin (P<0.001). S100P expression did not associate with subtype (P>0.05). There was no difference in disease-specific or recurrence-free survival among the subtypes. Periductal infiltration and American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition pT stage predicted survival by multivariable analysis accounting for gross configuration, pT stage, and histologic type. pT2 had worse outcome relative to other pT stages. Significant differences in histology and albumin expression distinguish LD from SD, but there is insufficient evidence to support further subclassification of SD.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.